Dismissed¶20

Nanda Ravindra Naik v. Sandeep Shekhar Suhas Rathod and Others

Bombay HC4 Mar 2026CA/2498/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; review application; amendment of written statement; withdrawal of admission; inconsistent pleas by defendant; ancestral property admission; error apparent on face of record; rejection of review; no order as to costs; Bombay High Court Aurangabad Bench; LIC v. Sanjeev Builders cited by counsel.

What did the court decide?

Five days' delay in filing the Review Application condoned; the review application itself rejected; no order as to costs. ¶20

Nanda Ravindra Naik vs Sandeep Shekhar Suhas Rathod and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2026:BHC-AUG:9325-DB

¶2

52 CA No.2498.2026

¶3

-1-

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2498 OF 2026 IN RAST/5927/2026

¶6

NANDA RAVINDRA NAIK VERSUS

¶7

SANDEEP SHEKHAR SUHAS RATHOD AND OTHERS

¶8

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. D. M. Shinde

¶9

CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.

¶10

Date : 4^th March, 2026

¶11

PER COURT :-

¶12

Civil Application No. 2498 of 2026

¶13

By this application, applicant seeks condonation of five (5) days delay in filing the Review Application.

¶14

For the reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned.

¶15

Review Application (St.) No. 5927 of 2026

¶16

Mr. Shinde, learned counsel for the applicant, invited my attention to Paragraph 6 of the previous order, alongside the copies of the written statement and the proposed amendments. He submitted that the defendant had previously given a clear admission in the original

¶17

52 CA No.2498.2026 -2-

¶18

written statement, that the said property as ancestral. In contrast, the proposed amendment introduces a contradictory theory. The counsel further submits that allowing such an amendment would permit the defendants to withdraw an admission and fundamentally shift their stance, thereby causing significant injustice and prejudice to the petitioner’s case.

¶19

In support of the contentions, the learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Anr. [2022 LJSoft (SC) 969] .

¶20

After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant, I find no merit in the present challenge. This Court, while previously allowing the amendment to the written statement, noted that the law is wellsettled that a defendant is permitted to take inconsistent pleas in their defence. Consequently, there is no error apparent on the face of the record regarding the order dated 19.06.2026. The review application is, therefore, rejected. No order as to costs.

¶21

(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)

¶22

Omkar Joshi

Nanda Ravindra Naik v. Sandeep Shekhar Suhas Rathod and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nanda Ravindra Naik v. Sandeep Shekhar Suhas Rathod and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Uday Baburao Chounde vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Shripati Sanganna Gadekar Deceased Thr Lrs Malu Shripati Gadekar vs Vasant Manoharrao Suryawanshi and Others

Shripati Sanganna Gadekar Since Died Thr Lrs Malu Shripati Gadekar and Another vs Ms Siddheshwar Developers Thr Its Partner Sattar Saheblaa Shaikh and Others

Mohd. Jafar Shaikh Ismail vs Purbha Tulsa Alias Tulsiram Dhutde and Another

Balasaheb Vishwanath Shinde vs the Maharashtra Krushna Valley Development Co. Thr Ex. Engineer, Medium Project Osmanabad and Ors.

The Maharashtra Krushna Valley Development Co. Thr Ex. Engineer, Medium Project Osmanabad and Ors. vs Gokul Vishwanath Shinde and Anr.